G.R. No. 224849 . June 06, 2018.
HEIRS OF ERNESTO MORALES, NAMELY: ROSARIO M. DANGSALAN, EVELYN M. SANGALANG, NENITA M. SALES, ERNESTO JOSE MORALES, JR., RAYMOND MORALES, AND MELANIE MORALES, PETITIONERS, VS. ASTRID MORALES AGUSTIN, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDGARDO TORRES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The respondent, Astrid Morales Agustin, a grandchild of the late Jayme Morales, filed a complaint for partition over a parcel of land registered in Jayme’s name. Jayme died intestate, survived by his four children: Vicente, Simeon, Jose, and Martina. The respondent, representing Simeon’s line, claimed that all grandchildren, as heirs by right of representation, were co-owners of the property. The petitioners, heirs of Ernesto Morales (Vicente’s son), opposed the action. They argued that partition was improper without prior settlement of Jayme’s estate and that the respondent’s parents had already conveyed their rights to Ernesto.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a summary judgment ordering the partition of the property into four equal shares corresponding to Jayme’s four children, to be inherited by their respective descendants by right of representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners elevated the case, contending that the RTC erred in rendering summary judgment as genuine issues of fact existed regarding the alleged extrajudicial settlement and conveyance of rights.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly rendered a summary judgment ordering the partition of the subject property.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. Summary judgment is proper when, upon the pleadings and supporting documents, no genuine issue of fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The core facts were undisputed: Jayme Morales died intestate as the registered owner, and the parties were his lawful heirs by right of representation. The petitioners’ defense—that an extrajudicial settlement had occurred and rights were conveyed—failed to raise a genuine factual issue. Their claim was unsupported by any documentary evidence, such as a deed of conveyance or a valid extrajudicial settlement agreement, and was a bare allegation contradicted by the extant title still in Jayme’s name.
The Court clarified that an action for partition is precisely the proper remedy for co-owners, and there is no legal requirement for prior judicial settlement of estate when the heirs are all ascertained and there are no debts. The right to seek partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches while the property remains undivided and the co-ownership persists. Since the petitioners presented no substantial evidence to controvert the established co-ownership, the RTC correctly applied summary judgment. The law favors the partition of inherited property to prevent the perpetual continuation of co-ownership, which was the situation here.